1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the reasoning of the judgment is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiffs added the judgment of the newly raised argument in the court of first instance; and (b) such reasoning is cited as it is in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion of this case is to be revoked since the disposition of this case is unlawful in substance or procedurally as follows.

(1) The FTA of this case adopts the “Standards for Change in HS 6 unit tariff numbers” as a criterion for determining the origin of imported goods. The gold bars imported by the Plaintiffs were processed through the process of refining, etc. using scrap scrap (No. 7112) or silver (Mine Dore, No. 7108.12) as raw materials. Since the tariff classification was 7108.13 or 7108.2, the gold bars fell under HS 6 unit tariff numbers, the origin of the gold bars in this case shall be deemed Switzerland, and therefore, the tariff rate stipulated in the FTA shall apply to the gold bars imported by the Plaintiffs.

(2) 절차적 위법사유 ㈎ 이 사건 FTA 협정 부속서 Ⅰ 제25조 위반 이 사건 FTA 협정 부속서 Ⅰ 제24조 제7항은 ‘검증요청일로부터 10월 이내에 회신이 없는 경우나 해당 서류의 진정성 또는 상품의 원산지를 판정할 수 있는 충분한 정보를 포함하지 아니하는 경우, 검증 요청 관세당국은 예외적인 경우를 제외하고 특혜관세대우를 배제할 권한을 가진다’고 규정하고 있는데, 위 규정 소정의 ‘예외적인 경우’의 범주에 관하여 체약 당사국들 사이에 다툼이 있으므로, 피고들은 위 부속서 제25조 규정에 따라 관세원산지 소위원회에 회부하여 그 협의 결과가 있을 때까지 이 사건 각 처분을 보류하는 등의 조치를 취하였어야 함에도 그러한 절차를 거치지 않은 채...